Cryptocurrency exchange BitMEX has been named in a £20 million lawsuit filed by British software engineer Lewis Barber, who alleges the company offered unauthorized derivatives trading to UK customers between 2018 and 2022.
Summary
- BitMEX faces a £20 million lawsuit from British software engineer Lewis Barber over cryptocurrency trading losses.
- Barber alleges BitMEX offered regulated derivatives without authorization from Britain’s Financial Conduct Authority during trading activities.
- The claim seeks Bitcoin lost between 2018 and 2022, relying on UK financial services legislation.
- BitMEX said the legal claim had not been served on its operating company, HDR Global.
- U.S. authorities fined BitMEX $100 million in January 2025 after its earlier Bank Secrecy Act conviction.
The Guardian reported on October 14 that Barber had filed the claim at London’s High Court against HDR Global Trading Limited, the Seychelles-based operator of BitMEX. Barber is seeking the return of Bitcoin he says he lost while trading cryptocurrency derivatives, or compensation of equivalent value. The claim had not been formally served on the company when the allegations became public.
BitMEX faces questions over unauthorized UK trading
Barber’s lawsuit centers on cryptocurrency derivatives, financial contracts that allow investors to speculate on price movements without directly owning the underlying assets. The products often involve leverage, which increases potential gains and losses.
Through his trading activity on BitMEX, Barber alleges he lost Bitcoin worth approximately £20 million between 2018 and 2022. His lawyers argue that the exchange lacked the necessary Financial Conduct Authority authorization to provide the disputed investment services to UK customers.
The claim relies on the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, particularly provisions dealing with agreements entered into by companies conducting regulated activities without the required permissions.
The legislation provides that certain agreements involving unauthorized regulated activities may be unenforceable. Under specified conditions, affected customers can seek the return of money or property transferred through such agreements.
Barber’s lawyers contend that the provisions apply to his cryptocurrency trades. The court has not decided whether BitMEX breached the applicable rules or whether the investor is entitled to recover his losses.
The disputed transactions involved leveraged cryptocurrency derivatives and perpetual futures, products that allow traders to take positions using borrowed exposure. Such contracts can produce substantial losses when prices move against leveraged positions.
Investor says BitMEX promoted its products in Britain
The lawsuit includes allegations concerning how BitMEX marketed its trading services to potential customers.
Barber’s lawyers claim the exchange conducted promotional campaigns internationally without excluding the United Kingdom. The filing specifically refers to an advertisement published in The Times on January 3, 2019.
The legal team argues that the company’s promotional activities supported its efforts to attract customers in Britain, despite allegedly lacking the regulatory permissions required for certain derivatives products.
The statement of claim refers to an FCA warning issued around March 3, 2020. According to the reported filing, the regulator warned that BitMEX might have been conducting regulated investment activities in the UK without authorization.
Barber’s lawyers maintain that the transactions were therefore subject to the remedies available under British financial services legislation. However, the FCA warning cited in the lawsuit is not itself a court finding that the disputed contracts were unlawful.
Gareth Keillor, a partner at Seladore Legal representing Barber, said the case concerns cryptocurrency trading losses accumulated over several years.
“This is a substantial claim concerning losses sustained by Lewis over a number of years,” Keillor said.
He explained that Barber’s position is that BitMEX entered into the disputed transactions without the authorization required under UK law. The investor is consequently seeking the Bitcoin he lost or equivalent damages.
Keillor suggested that other UK customers may have entered similar agreements with the platform, although the merits of any separate claims would depend on individual trading records and circumstances.
BitMEX says the £20 million claim has not been served
The legal action became public weeks after BitMEX ended its cryptocurrency exchange operations.
The Seychelles-based platform voluntarily closed on September 23, 2026, following a strategic review of its business. The closure ended its trading services but did not prevent legal claims from being filed against its operating company.
Barber named HDR Global Trading Limited as the defendant in the High Court proceedings.
Responding to the reported lawsuit, a BitMEX spokesperson said, “No such claim has been served on HDR Global Trading Limited.”
The statement addressed the formal service of the claim and did not provide a detailed response to the allegations concerning UK regulatory authorization.
Filing proceedings and formally serving them on a defendant are separate legal steps. Service ordinarily gives the defendant notice of the case and an opportunity to respond within the applicable court timetable.
No defense filing, hearing date or judgment in Barber’s case was identified in the October 14 report.
Barber’s lawyers suggested that the proceedings could have consequences for other former customers who traded similar products through BitMEX.
Keillor said other UK residents may have entered comparable contracts, but he cautioned that any potential recovery would depend on the particular facts and trading history.
The legal team suggested that liabilities could reach hundreds of millions of pounds if additional investors brought successful claims. The estimate represents a possible scenario raised by Barber’s lawyers, not an established liability or damages award.
BitMEX has faced previous legal action in the U.S.
The latest case follows earlier enforcement proceedings against BitMEX and its founders in the United States.
In July 2024, HDR Global Trading Limited pleaded guilty to violating the Bank Secrecy Act after federal prosecutors accused the exchange operator of failing to maintain an adequate anti-money-laundering program.
The U.S. Department of Justice confirmed the guilty plea, stating that the company failed to establish sufficient customer identification and compliance procedures while conducting cryptocurrency derivatives business.
Prosecutors said the exchange allowed customers to open accounts using limited identifying information during part of the period covered by the investigation.
In January 2025, the Justice Department announced that BitMEX had been fined $100 million for the Bank Secrecy Act offense.
The sentence followed the company’s guilty plea and included a two-year probation period.
BitMEX founders Arthur Hayes, Ben Delo and Samuel Reed had previously pleaded guilty to related Bank Secrecy Act charges in 2022. They received financial penalties and sentences that did not require imprisonment.
President Donald Trump pardoned the three founders in March 2025.
The earlier U.S. proceedings concerned anti-money-laundering compliance and customer identification requirements. Barber’s lawsuit concerns a separate question involving the authorization needed to offer certain financial products in Britain.
Meanwhile, BitMEX has faced another civil action in New York, where investors accused the exchange of Bitcoin theft and insider trading. The company has denied those allegations.
Ben Delo, one of the exchange’s founders, has separately attracted attention in British politics after making a £36 million donation to Reform UK. Delo said the contribution was intended to support what he described as fair political competition.
Barber’s High Court claim seeks the return of Bitcoin allegedly lost through trading between 2018 and 2022, or equivalent damages. As of the October 14 report, BitMEX maintained that the proceedings had not been formally served on HDR Global Trading Limited.
